Remembering 9/11 - V2 - General

[QUOTE='[GRiM];32207089']My sister just said: "I'm sorta like that too, let's forget it. People in Afghanistan have to deal with it everyday" Are you fucking kidding me? The main reason they do is because they decided to bomb us.[/QUOTE] The ignorance in this post exceeds my patience for idiots like you. The Taliban bombed us, not Afghanistan, not Iraq. I don't know why people feel the need to judge an entire country by the actions of a select few of its people. It's like when people throw everyone in the United States in with the "Confederate toting country music loving truck driving" crowd. It's ridiculous. I saw on the news the other day, Muslim members of our community have been raising donations for the families of local victims. Then the guys said, "We're doing this to help, not all Muslim's are terrorists." I feel bad for Muslim's. Like any other religion, what people fail to realize, is there are groups who take things overboard, and there are those who worship casually and don't harm anyone in the matter. Westboro = Bad. Local church that old ladies go to and everyone is friendly: Good. Get the idea? GRiM, your statement is what makes me sad to be an American. People in the Middle East have been rattled by war for the last 50 years. After one dictator is outed, another rises to take the place. Had you actually understand what it's like over there, and you might understand. It's not Religion that fuels wars, religion is just a front dictators and tyrants use to control people, which is why people commonly misunderstand things. It's easy for a leader to sit back and say, "God tells you not to do this, and he told me to tell you!"

[QUOTE=CrispexOps;32207189]The ignorance in this post exceeds my patience for idiots like you. The Taliban bombed us, not Afghanistan, not Iraq. I don't know why people feel the need to judge an entire country by the actions of a select few of its people. It's like when people throw everyone in the United States in with the "Confederate toting country music loving truck driving" crowd. It's ridiculous. I saw on the news the other day, Muslim members of our community have been raising donations for the families of local victims. Then the guys said, "We're doing this to help, not all Muslim's are terrorists." I feel bad for Muslim's. Like any other religion, what people fail to realize, is there are groups who take things overboard, and there are those who worship casually and don't harm anyone in the matter. Westboro = Bad. Local church that old ladies go to and everyone is friendly: Good. Get the idea? GRiM, your statement is what makes me sad to be an American. People in the Middle East have been rattled by war for the last 50 years. After one dictator is outed, another rises to take the place. Had you actually understand what it's like over there, and you might understand. It's not Religion that fuels wars, religion is just a front dictators and tyrants use to control people, which is why people commonly misunderstand things. It's easy for a leader to sit back and say, "God tells you not to do this, and he told me to tell you!"[/QUOTE] Weren't the actual terrorists Saudi? The only reason we went into Afghanistan is because it was a huge cesspool for Taliban activity. Afghanistan is our Ally. It has been from the start, well, we had to remove the huge Taliban influence, but the people there were always good people.

Just want to put it out there. The Taliban were a major power in Afghanistan prior to the 2001 Invasion which was aimed at kicking them out. Elements of the Afghan government harbored the Taliban and the Taliban harbored Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda was completely kicked out of Afghanistan and we're still fighting what's left of the Taliban. We helped the formation of the new Afghan Government and currently we're allies with Afghanistan. It's a better place without the Taliban. Also looks like I've been ninja'd

[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;32207319]Just want to put it out there. The Taliban were a major power in Afghanistan prior to the 2001 Invasion which was aimed at kicking them out. Elements of the Afghan government harbored the Taliban and the Taliban harbored Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda was completely kicked out of Afghanistan and we're still fighting what's left of the Taliban. We helped the formation of the new Afghan Government and currently we're allies with Afghanistan. It's a better place without the Taliban. Also looks like I've been ninja'd[/QUOTE] Did you know that Rambo 3 was dedicated to the brave freedom fighters in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda? It's true, Rambo helped Al Qaeda.

lankist you sexy devil you, I was thinking about how I missed you in political threads last night

[QUOTE=CrispexOps;32207189]The ignorance in this post exceeds my patience for idiots like you. The Taliban bombed us, not Afghanistan, not Iraq. I don't know why people feel the need to judge an entire country by the actions of a select few of its people. It's like when people throw everyone in the United States in with the "Confederate toting country music loving truck driving" crowd. It's ridiculous. I saw on the news the other day, Muslim members of our community have been raising donations for the families of local victims. Then the guys said, "We're doing this to help, not all Muslim's are terrorists." I feel bad for Muslim's. Like any other religion, what people fail to realize, is there are groups who take things overboard, and there are those who worship casually and don't harm anyone in the matter. Westboro = Bad. Local church that old ladies go to and everyone is friendly: Good. Get the idea? GRiM, your statement is what makes me sad to be an American. People in the Middle East have been rattled by war for the last 50 years. After one dictator is outed, another rises to take the place. Had you actually understand what it's like over there, and you might understand. It's not Religion that fuels wars, religion is just a front dictators and tyrants use to control people, which is why people commonly misunderstand things. It's easy for a leader to sit back and say, "God tells you not to do this, and he told me to tell you!"[/QUOTE] TL;DR [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Read: "Ignorance"" - daijitsu))[/highlight]

[QUOTE='[GRiM];32207729']TL;DR [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Read: "Ignorance"" - daijitsu))[/highlight][/QUOTE] A ban well deserved. Anyway, back on subject.

I think the tragedy of 9/11 needs to be viewed in tandem with the horrible things we have done to the Iraqi people. I like this thread because the response to this horror is simply grief. We feel bad for those that loved lost ones, feel bad for those that died. I know I got a little teary eyed and my heart started pumping when I listened to some of those phone calls. The problem is that when we as a nation experienced 9/11, we didn't just have this emotion of grief. With it came an intense nationalism. It is still here. Osama is dead and we scream, "USA, USA, USA." Don't get me wrong, Osama was a bad fucking dude, but we needed to move on, not continue with the nationalism. Our feelings and grief and horror at this tragedy were funneled into a neo-nationalistic discourse that viewed arabs as threats to our security, islam as a religion of destruction, and those that questioned America were labeled as terrorist sympathizers. Over 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed because of our response to 9/11. War and violence fucking sucks, it makes me sick to my stomach sometimes just thinking about it. I feel so privileged to not have to personally experience the nightmare of theses things. All I'm saying is lets not just remember 9/11, lets remember what we did after it. Some people will say, "this isn't the thread for that" my point is that we should remember the two groups of victims as part of the same issue - senseless death from an ongoing conflict between the United States and non-state actors.

102 Minutes That Changed America. Great documentary. The show it every year on the history channel here. Part 1 [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnksnJW_S5c&feature=channel_video_title[/media] Part 2 [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncjndIuXdqU&feature=relmfu[/media] Part 3 [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKvCmWGj-mA&feature=relmfu[/media] Part 4 -unavailable- Really was horrible what happened that day.

i'm just amazed at how the jet fuel with a open air burning temperature of about 500 degrees Celsius, melted through all the redundant re-inforced steel columns that have a melting point of over 2000 degrees Celsius.

[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;32207319]Just want to put it out there. The Taliban were a major power in Afghanistan prior to the 2001 Invasion which was aimed at kicking them out. Elements of the Afghan government harbored the Taliban and the Taliban harbored Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda was completely kicked out of Afghanistan and we're still fighting what's left of the Taliban. We helped the formation of the new Afghan Government and currently we're allies with Afghanistan. It's a better place without the Taliban. Also looks like I've been ninja'd[/QUOTE] You know, I was listening to NPR and a correspondent of theirs thought that our occupation might not have made Afghanistan all that much better. While the government was in many ways corrupt and brutal, they offered safety to the populace in that you could drive from Kandahar to Kabul at night and not be afraid of getting attacked. A sort of "deal with the devil." Src: [url]http://www.npr.org/2011/09/09/140297428/in-the-thick-of-it-sept-11-from-the-middle-east[/url]

How was the OP an assclown?

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;32210008]i'm just amazed at how the jet fuel with a open air burning temperature of about 500 degrees Celsius, melted through all the redundant re-inforced steel columns that have a melting point of over 2000 degrees Celsius.[/QUOTE] Except that's not what happened at all. The planes, two 767 knocked out a number of vertical columns around the building perimeter, damaged large sections of floor, sent furniture and plane wreckage flying through the offices and presumably damaged support columns in each building's core. Most likely, the initial impact also destroyed the sprinkler system on those floors. The fire never melted though any of the steel columns although the fires did burn long enough and hot enough to severely weaken and compromise them. The first plane was a 395,000 pound Boeing 767-200ER going about 470 miles per hour, fractured as many as 36 perimeter support columns over a four-story area of WTC 1's north face. The connected floors partially collapsed, and the central core suffered undefined damage. The second plane, a Boeing 767-200ER flying at about 590 miles per hour, inflicted similar damage on WTC 2. The collision fractured as many as 32 perimeter columns over a five-story area, collapsing sections of connected floor and damaging the central core. In each attack, the crash ignited the plane's' fuel supply, causing a massive fireball. While the ignited fuel didn't really explode, the fireball did spread fire down the side of the building, throughout the nearby floors and down interior shafts to lower floors. The investigators hypothesized that nearly all of the jet fuel was consumed in the initial fireball and first few minutes of the building fire, but it ignited enough office equipment, paper and building materials to keep the fire raging until the collapse. The main factor was really the size of the fire, the total area it covered. Building fires typically start with a small fire, say a burning cigarette on a stack of papers, which gradually spreads through a larger area. In that situation, the fire is most intense where it has the most fuel (stuff that can burn), and it significantly weakens the support structure only at those most intense points. If a fire starts in the northwest corner of a skyscraper floor, by the time the fire reaches the southeast corner, the starting fire at the starting point will have burned through most of the fuel, and the fire will not be as intense. The result is the fire doesn't put maximum strain on the total support structure all at once. It strains different parts of the support structure in turn, over time. In the case of the World Trade Center, the burning jet fuel spread the fire across several floors in a matter of seconds. This massive fire put exceptional strain on the structure at nearly all points on those floors. Additionally, the report suggests that the force of the collision removed much of the fire-resistant material sprayed on the steel, making the structure more susceptible to heat damage. The heat expanded, twisted and buckled the steel support structure, gradually reducing the building's stability. Any number of things could have happened during this period. For example, connections between vertical columns and floor trusses probably broke, dropping sections of floor on lower levels and breaking connections between the core and the perimeter wall, possibly causing columns along the perimeter to buckle outward. Every broken connection or buckled length of steel added to the force acting on connected steel segments, until the entire structure was weakened to the point that it couldn't hold the upper section of the building which caused catastrophic failure and lead to it's ultimate collapse. [editline]10th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=andpie;32210095]You know, I was listening to NPR and a correspondent of theirs thought that our occupation might not have made Afghanistan all that much better. While the government was in many ways corrupt and brutal, they offered safety to the populace in that you could drive from Kandahar to Kabul at night and not be afraid of getting attacked. A sort of "deal with the devil." Src: [url]http://www.npr.org/2011/09/09/140297428/in-the-thick-of-it-sept-11-from-the-middle-east[/url][/QUOTE] From what I've seen the areas that have been completely rid of the Taliban are a better place and the economy has been gradually coming back online and the areas where there is still fighting is pretty dire but that's just what I've gathered myself. The war in Afghanistan isn't something I know a great deal about.

[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;32210282]Except that's not what happened at all. The planes, two 767 knocked out a number of vertical columns around the building perimeter, damaged large sections of floor, sent furniture and plane wreckage flying through the offices and presumably damaged support columns in each building's core. Most likely, the initial impact also destroyed the sprinkler system on those floors. The first plane was a 395,000 pound Boeing 767-200ER going about 470 miles per hour, fractured as many as 36 perimeter support columns over a four-story area of WTC 1's north face. The connected floors partially collapsed, and the central core suffered undefined damage. The second plane, a Boeing 767-200ER flying at about 590 miles per hour, inflicted similar damage on WTC 2. The collision fractured as many as 32 perimeter columns over a five-story area, collapsing sections of connected floor and damaging the central core. In each attack, the crash ignited the plane's' fuel supply, causing a massive fireball. While the ignited fuel didn't really explode, the fireball did spread fire down the side of the building, throughout the nearby floors and down interior shafts to lower floors. The investigators hypothesized that nearly all of the jet fuel was consumed in the initial fireball and first few minutes of the building fire, but it ignited enough office equipment, paper and building materials to keep the fire raging until the collapse. The main factor was really the size of the fire, the total area it covered. Building fires typically start with a small fire, say a burning cigarette on a stack of papers, which gradually spreads through a larger area. In that situation, the fire is most intense where it has the most fuel (stuff that can burn), and it significantly weakens the support structure only at those most intense points. If a fire starts in the northwest corner of a skyscraper floor, by the time the fire reaches the southeast corner, the starting fire at the starting point will have burned through most of the fuel, and the fire will not be as intense. The result is the fire doesn't put maximum strain on the total support structure all at once. It strains different parts of the support structure in turn, over time. In the case of the World Trade Center, the burning jet fuel spread the fire across several floors in a matter of seconds. This massive fire put exceptional strain on the structure at nearly all points on those floors. Additionally, the report suggests that the force of the collision removed much of the fire-resistant material sprayed on the steel, making the structure more susceptible to heat damage. The heat expanded, twisted and buckled the steel support structure, gradually reducing the building's stability. Any number of things could have happened during this period. For example, connections between vertical columns and floor trusses probably broke, dropping sections of floor on lower levels and breaking connections between the core and the perimeter wall, possibly causing columns along the perimeter to buckle outward. Every broken connection or buckled length of steel added to the force acting on connected steel segments, until the entire structure was weakened to the point that it couldn't hold the upper section of the building which caused catastrophic failure and lead to it's ultimate collapse. [editline]10th September 2011[/editline] From what I've seen the areas that have been completely rid of the Taliban are a better place and the economy has been gradually coming back online and the areas where there is still fighting is pretty dire but that's just what I've gathered myself. The war in Afghanistan isn't something I know a great deal about.[/QUOTE] Alright, in a simple answer how did the central support structures (which have a melting point of about 2000 C no matter how long the fire is there or how much there was) become weak enough to collapse? and even so, why did it collapse downward, every single floor almost one by one after being struck at the top section of the building by an aluminum plane?

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;32210320]Alright, in a simple answer how did the central support structures (which have a melting point of about 2000 C no matter how long the fire is there or how much there was) become weak enough to collapse? and even so, why did it collapse downward, every single floor almost one by one after being struck at the top section of the building by an aluminum plane?[/QUOTE] Oh great, more unsubstantiated claims and pseudoscience. Instead of writing a wall of text that you won't read or comprehend how about I just get right to the root of what you want to say? What you're trying to get at is that you think the World Trade Center was brought down by a Controlled Demolition and not two 767's traveling at hundreds of miles an hour slamming into the buildings, right?

[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;32210342]Oh great, more unsubstantiated claims and pseudoscience. Instead of writing a wall of text that you won't read or comprehend how about I just get right to the root of what you want to say? What you're trying to get at is that you think the World Trade Center was brought down by a Controlled Demolition and not two 767's traveling at hundreds of miles an hour slamming into the buildings, right?[/QUOTE] i just want this straight in my head, it just didn't make sense to me. answering can help instead of assuming the defensive anger position. p.s. where the hell did the "pseudo-science" come into play [editline]10th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;32210342]Oh great, more unsubstantiated claims and pseudoscience. Instead of writing a wall of text that you won't read or comprehend how about I just get right to the root of what you want to say? What you're trying to get at is that you think the World Trade Center was brought down by a Controlled Demolition and not two 767's traveling at hundreds of miles an hour slamming into the buildings, right?[/QUOTE] p.s.s speed isn't as important as mass, i could send a grain of rice at you at 100 mph and it would by a small fraction of a ten pound weight at 15 mph

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;32210320]Alright, in a simple answer how did the central support structures (which have a melting point of about 2000 C no matter how long the fire is there or how much there was) become weak enough to collapse? and even so, why did it collapse downward, every single floor almost one by one after being struck at the top section of the building by an aluminum plane?[/QUOTE] High carbon steel looses 50% of it's strength at temperatures above 1100 f, and with the hottest temperatures at 1800 f, this caused the steel to buckle. Which eventually lead to collapse of the towers. In which none of this would have ever happened if the fireproofing foam was blasted off by the plane collisions. On another note, no credible source, or the NIST ever stated that the steel melted.

As for why the building collapsed downward in a 'pancake' collapse it takes some explaining but it's really quite simple. The heat expanded the steel in the truss in all directions. As a result they also expanded into the columns. The trusses/floor system, sagged in the middle because the columns were preventing the trusses from expanding in their direction. That led to the bowing of the exterior columns. In terms of mass, the floors were comparable to tree trunks and the columns were like branches. The floor connections of the long span floors could support a load of a couple story masses and had an energy absorbing ability of a couple hundredths of a GJ per story. The floor connections were like crepe connecting the floors to the columns. The crepe was sufficient for the structure in its static organized state but was a weak link during collapse when the structure in the region of the collapse front no longer resembled the static organized state. Simulation of expanding truss pushing out on a perimeter column and sagging [t]http://filesmelt.com/dl/sagt.jpg[/t] [t]http://filesmelt.com/dl/sag.ht1_.jpg[/t] The massive weight easily caused a "Pancaking" effect but unlike the original hypothesis, the pancaking didn't cause the collapse. It was a result of the collapse. [t]http://filesmelt.com/dl/coll_pancake.jpg[/t] Below we see the top of the south tower fall behind the perimeter columns at an angle. The top falls behind the perimeter columns and on the floors. (This happened at both buildings as this evidenced by these video screen shots of the north tower.) The angle at which it falls pushes the perimeter columns in front of the falling top section outward, giving them distance. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SSS0DDqfm0&feature=player_embedded[/media] [t]http://filesmelt.com/dl/sim1.gif[/t] [t]http://filesmelt.com/dl/pivot.jpg[/t] When this happened, the top part of each building collapsed onto the lower part of the building. Essentially, this was like dropping a 20-story building on top of another building. Before the crash, this upper structure exerted a constant downward force, its weight, on the superstructure below. Obviously, the lower superstructure was strong enough to support this weight. But when the columns collapsed, the upper part of the building started moving, the downward force of gravity accelerated it. The momentum of an object, the quantity of its motion, is equal to its mass multiplied by its velocity. So when you increase the velocity of an object with a set mass, you increase its momentum. This increases the total force that the object can exert on another object. To understand how this works, think of a hammer. Resting in your hand, it doesn't hurt you at all. But if you drop it on your foot, it can do some damage. Similarly, if you swing the hammer forward, you can apply enough force to drive nails into a wall. When the upper structure of each tower fell down, its velocity, and therefore its momentum, increased sharply. This greater momentum resulted in an impact force that exceeded the structural integrity of the columns immediately underneath the destroyed area. Those support columns gave way, and the whole mass fell on the floors even farther down. In this way, the force of the falling building structure broke apart the superstructure underneath, crushing the building from the top, one floor at a time. To put it another way, the potential energy of the building mass, the energy of position it had due to its height and the pull of gravity, was converted into kinetic energy, or energy of motion (the report puts the total potential energy for WTC 1 at 4*10^11 joules). This is the same basic principle that professional demolition blasters use to bring down unoccupied buildings. WTC 2, the second tower hit, actually collapsed before WTC 1. This was most likely due to two different factors. First, WTC 2 probably suffered greater immediate damage, the second plane to hit was going faster than the first. Secondly, the plane that hit WTC 2 crashed lower on the building than the plane that hit WTC 1. Consequently, the strained support columns in WTC 2 had a greater load pressing down on them than the strained columns in WTC 1, so it would make sense that they reached the buckling point more quickly. While the towers' support structure ultimately couldn't withstand the raging fire, it was strong enough to save thousands of people's lives. Around 99 percent of the people below the impact in each tower were able to evacuate before the buildings collapsed. If the towers hadn't been built with redundant structural stability, the death toll would have easily been in the tens of thousands.

thanks man, that makes sense

[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;32210467]High carbon steel looses 50% of it's strength at temperatures above 1100 f, and with the hottest temperatures at 1800 f, this caused the steel to buckle. Which eventually lead to collapse of the towers. In which none of this would have ever happened if the fireproofing foam was blasted off by the plane collisions. On another note, no credible source, or the NIST ever stated that the steel melted.[/QUOTE] Right on the money. [editline]10th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=SIRIUS;32210479]alright that makes sense, but it doesn't explain why the buildings went straight down nevermind all the way down[/QUOTE] Just explained it in detail.

fixed

Wasn't there a movie with the twilight guy and he died in WTC

'Remember Me' directed by Allen Coulter.

[QUOTE=Axelius;32196425]I do agree with you. and anyway I think the americans are a little bit hypocritical, the war that you started after this has killed over 100,000 civilians so far. Good job! god bless those heroes.[/QUOTE] There are civilian casualties in every war. It not like the military main goal is to go kill as many civilians as possible.

May all those poor Innocent souls rest in peace.

wow. twistai, go to hell you fucking worthless human being. this is why austria cant have nice things.

Someone in the original thread posted some rare photos of the Towers/debris/bodies from street level. They were very interesting, and it would be great if they were posted again.

[QUOTE=Aspen;32212791]wow. twistai, go to hell you fucking worthless human being. this is why austria cant have nice things.[/QUOTE] Austria is more civilized than new york. New york is still in stone age and there's lots of hobos.

[QUOTE=TtIiVv;32216736]Someone in the original thread posted some rare photos of the Towers/debris/bodies from street level. They were very interesting, and it would be great if they were posted again.[/QUOTE] That was me. I already did. Check page two. There are two posts. [url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1123892?p=32191980&viewfull=1#post32191980[/url] [url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1123892?p=32192293&viewfull=1#post32192293[/url]

[QUOTE=Twistai;32217659]Austria is more civilized than new york. New york is still in stone age and there's lots of hobos.[/QUOTE] [img]http://www.allcountries.org/photos/austria/skyline_vienna_austria_photo_wikipedia.jpg[/img] austria [img]http://famouswonders.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/new-york-skyline-at-night.jpg[/img] new york. excuse me? stop talking out of your ass.